NC0025071_Environmental Assessment_19900420

AV
James G. Martin„.Govemor
North Carolina
Department of Administration
April 20, 1990
Mr. Alan Clark
N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Archdale Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Clark:
James S. Lofton, Secretary
RFUMED
APR 2 4 1990
RE: SCH File #90-E-4300-0716; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Proposed
Expansion of the City of Eden's Mebane Bridge Wastewaer
Treatment Plant
The above referenced environmental impact information has been
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions
of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached"to this letter are comments made by state/local
agencies in the course of this review. Because of the nature
of the comment(s), it has been determined that no further State
Clearinghouse review action on your part is needed for
compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
The attached comments should be taken into consideration in
project development.
Best regards.
S' ce sly,
J S. Lofton
JSL:jt
cc: Region G
Attachments
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity I Affitmative Action Employer

North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]
March 27, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouses Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Ca p�, Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section 5
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
Re: State # 90-E-4300-0716
The Review material for the Expansion of Eden's Mebane
Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant in Rockingham County
indicates the site is within the floodplain as identified on
the Flood Insurance Rate Maps of the National Flood Insurance
Program.
Rockingham County is a non -participating community with
regard to the National Flood Insurance Program. The National
Flood Insurance Program is, strictly speaking, a voluntary
program. However, Federal law imposes certain restrictions
on federal or federally -related financing within the flood
hazard areas of non -participating communities. The philosophy
behind these restrictions is that a community has the right
to choose not to regulate development within desiginated
flood -prone areas. However, the Federal government's policy
is not to finance development in these hazardous areas when
the communities do not participate in the NFIP.
More specifically, these restrictions include:
1. No federal grants or loans for development may be made
in special flood hazard areas. This includes all
Federal agencies such as HUD, FmHA, SBA, EPAs etc.
2, No Federal disaster assistance for the repair or
reconstruction of facilities will be provided in
special flood hazard areas of non -participating
communities.
An E,10,11 01,1N +rnmity 1 A irtmo k-c Action Emplt,\vi

PIEDMONT TRIAD COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Intergovernmental Review Process
2216 W. Meadomiew Road
Greensboro, North Carolina 27407-3480
Telephone: [phone]
REVIEW & COMMENT FORM
The State Clearinghouse sent us the enclosed information about a proposal which
could affect your jurisdiction. Please circulate it to the people you believe -
need to be informed.
If you need more information about the proposal, please contact the applicant
directly. The name and phone number of a contact person are listed on the
attached "Notification of Intent."
If you wish to comment on p proposed action, c m lete this form and return
it to the PTCOG office by
We will send your comments t61the State Clearinghouse to be included in a re-
commendation to the proposed funding agency.
State Application Identifier # 90-- —0 7/6
Commenter' s Name & Title �j, ,� J
Representing
(lockl government)
Mailing Address
11
gnatu
Phone # D,/
- ,�CIgr,,&,= �I c a�s2
Date Signed
Comments: (You may attach additional sheets.)
U /
ol
%L-arm
410 qA
S�16 OR 1
990
ell
v R���
SEC �"„D a)
Dpq oracr �o'�

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 7, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Clark
FROM: Juan C. Mangles )('"
Betsy Johnson
THROUGH: Carla Sanderson
Trevor Clements�i
SUBJECT: Comments by John Sutherland concerning the City of Eden
Environmental Assessment for
Mebane Bridge Wastewater Treatment Expansion
NPDES Permit No.Si �1�ooZSo'il
Rockingham County
We received your memo dated February 19, 1990 with attached comments from
John Sutherland of the Division of Water Resources. John Sutherland is concerned
about the implication of the Smith River's flow regulation in the Level B analysis
performed for the Eden Mebane -Bridge WWTP in October, 1989. The subject facility
discharges to the Dan River, approximately 0.5 mi. downstream from the confluence
of the Smith River and the Dan River.
DEM acknowledges the very large diurnal changes in flow which occur in the
Smith River below the Philpott Dam hydropower project owned and operated by the US
Army Corps of Engineers which regulates flows in the Smith River. However, while
the Smith River is greatly affected by the hydropower project, the effects to the
Dan River below Eden are dampened by the steady flows from the Dan River upstream
of the confluence with the Smith River since the drainage area is approximately
twice than that of the of the Smith River.
The flow regime resulting from the operational practices of the dam has been
addressed in a study entitled "An Update of Color Control Activities in the Smith
and Dan Rivers Basins" prepared by DEM in January, 1990. A copy of the draft
document is attached for your reference. This study indicates that during weekends
the average daily flows to the Smith River are significantly reduced to as low as
50 cfs (at USGS gaging station 02072000, immediately downstream from the dam). On
Sundays the floodgates are opened to resume normal flow, releasing at that time a
very large volume of water that surges downstream as a wave. Thus, a weekly
hydrograph of any site on the Smith River below Philpott Dam reflects low flows on
weekends followed by a peak flow shortly thereafter. The study further indicates
that streamflow patterns in the Dan River also exhibit influence from the spike of
flow released at Philpott, although with a time lag and a dampening of the magni-
tude of variation.
DEM further acknowledges that the study mentioned above addresses average
daily flows and that the initial instantaneous release from the dam provides an
even greater surge than is indicated by a 24 hour average. We are concerned about
this slug loading from the Smith River and its implication in our mathematical
simulation of the system. However, in the absence of a more sophisticated technol-
ogy to address this issue at this time, we feel that our analysis appropriately
addresses the main issue, color, within the context of our limitations.

The oxygen deficit model, Level B. developed in October, 1989 for the Eden
Mebane -Bridge WWTP utilizes a 7Q10 flow = 313 cfs at the point of discharge as
provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) at station 0207402100 in 1988. This
flow was derived from a gaging site (USGS station 02071000, located approximately
6.5 mi. upstream from the point of discharge, and approximately 6.0 mi. upstream
from the confluence with the Smith River). Since DO has not been an issue in the
Dan River, we feel that our level B analysis accurately represents a seven day low
flow condition.
The summer 7Q10 of 313 cfs at the point of discharge was also used in the
toxics analysis (i.e. based on the conservation of mass) for the subject facility.
we do not know the impact the discussed flow regime may have on the concentrations
of toxicants in the stream. We are afraid this issue will not be completely
understood until monitoring data, as required in the new permit, are analyzed.
We regret that the Technical Support Branch cannot perform a more accurate
analysis with our current capabilities as long as the existent flow regime in the
Smith River is maintained by the Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Betsy
Johnson or Juan C. Mangles.
JCM/
Attachment
cc: Edg$ Mebane -Bridge WWTP WLA
Central Files

a. no
ya/90
�c
E^+g
cd /•are ;�
fll5(o cv/ _ i. 5 l�A —hoc < Co%n l.- G.,/ -A
Sm�TX� �w �✓la�rn � JDiuILJoGi ,mac•^ �R�cl.o �Jas�i
-
S-Ae5.
op
4w 7 Ql0 ,A- c.V �y"„�y- a �, a eo co r` —
i Q lc ` L'74v . co — `wf+. q e. li��
7CZ(A .w'{- 6sc.� _.@_7a.,..,RPa — ncE �v�.• � f�'- —.2sP SQf /S.,,-,
54�c
1Qu� �.,:� � � � G-�Co- � 1J w�, % 19 � � 3.7 � . (o `�" vU•,�.�-'i/1/

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North �'.Prolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor February 2 0 , 19 9 0
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary �` c`': ° e
R. Paul WAms
Director
Mr. David Cain, P.E. FEB 2 1 1990
Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Limited
One Centerview Drive Suite 208
Greensboro, NC 27407 ,f
Dear Mr. Cain:
This is in reference to the environmental assessment (EA)
being prepared by your firm for expansion of the City of Eden's
Mebane Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Attached are comments received as a result of a Departmental
review of the draft EA. Comments were provided by William
Flournoy of the NC Division of Planning and Assessment, John
Sutherland of the NC Division of Water Resources and Betsey
Johnson of DEM's Technical Support Branch. Please review these
comments and revise the document as necessary to address them.
Further elaboration is needed on the items identified below.
The numbers refer to numbered items on the attached
correspondence. Unless specific guidance is given, a very brief
explanation (paragraph or less) for each item should suffice.
Division of Planning and Assessment comments
1. Flooding potential at plant.
2. Characterization of community.
3. Canoe trail.
4. Access area - It is recommended that you discuss this with the
Town (it is a potentially good idea), but it does not need to
be pursued in any detail.
5. I and I - this issue was also raised by Water Resources and
needs further elaboration
6. Population growth and useful life of excess plant capacity.
7. Secondary impacts - Departmental rules concerning the need to
address primary, secondary and cumulative impacts are included
for your review (see page 3 of attachment II). Basically,
these need to be addressed in detail only where the resulting
impacts may be significant. However, even where these
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

impacts are not expected to be significant, as is the case for
this project, it is appropriate that they at least be
acknowledged. Therefore, pursuant to Mr. Flournoy's comments,
it is recommended that a brief statement on secondary and
cumulative impacts be included for each category. These
statements should:
a. acknowledge that some cumulative impacts would
be expected to result from secondary growth
accomodated by the expansion (ie. minor increase
in air pollution from more people and more cars; some
additional pressure on public parks; some possible
pressure on wetlands filling; some additional pressure
to develop prime agricultural lands that may exist in the
projected service area, etc.)
b. characterize the significance of the impacts.
c. mention any local, state or federal policies, ordinances,
rules or regulations that may apply to controlling or
managing secondary growth impacts. (eg. land use plans or
zoning regulations; US Army Corps of Engineers
wetland protection regulations, etc.)
Division of Water Resources
1. Impacts of regulated Smith River flows on water quality
modeling - I have asked our Technical Support Branch to
address this.
2. I and I.
The remaining comments presented in DEM's remarks do not
appear to require further explanation from me. However, if you
have questions on how to respond to any of the comments, above,
please feel free to contact either me or the respective agency
commentor.
Sincerely,
�&- 4 g (L�
Alan R. Clark
Environmental Planner
EdenEA.Ltr/ARC-3
Enclosures
cc: Steve Mauney
Trevor Clements
Betsey Johnson
John Sutherland
William Flournoy
Melba McGee

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
February 2, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Division of Planning & Assessment
FROM: John Sutherland, Chief P.
Water Resources Plannird Section
John N. Morris
Director
SUBJECT: City of Eden Environmental Assessment for
Mebane Bridge Wastewater Treatment Expansion
JDS/va
nt:
1. Did the Division of Environmental Management Leve-3�
analyses consider fluctuations in flow caused by the
regulation of the Smith River?
2. What is the schedule for the repair of inflow and
infiltration into the plant? I and I seems to be a
significant part of the need to expand the treatment
plant.
P.O Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

uS6S 217iIC[L)
d 2 o 1 1 co 0 D nµ �l &4cx"-, �^
S -7 (��\o
3'o (/�Z
y1.2, C�s
w1 q\o -
Q f s
30
30
c�2
6-fir V� (kiL6s)
2/23 /q o
2(13��t o

40 010-140013
S -7 Q t O _ -16-11 S--
3
V
�`i� o zo1100 88 o LOB 402 to 0
a %,O : 3 )
S O = O� h �• �Q L1nt A `lAA IV-n nrU I
to. Ova 0
OZO`l

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 30, 1990
TO: Alan Clark Al
THROUGH: Carla Sanderson
Trevor Clements
FROM: Betsy Johnsond4
SUBJECT:- Draft EA for City of Eden Mebane Bridge Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion, Rockingham County
The Technical Support Branch has received the Draft EA for
the City of Eden Mebane Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion from the Planning Branch for review. The major issues
associated with the expansion are: the additional wasteflow,
potential toxic constituents, and color. Though the flow issue is
addressed fairly well, toxics and color are not emphasized in the
assessment.
1. The "Existing Environment" section, p.21 should
contain a paragraph on instream color with the
following suggested language:
Difficulties in the treatment of water for water
supply have been experienced in Danville, VA, and in
Eden, NC. The source of these difficulties is
elevated color concentrations from dyes used in
textile production. Several textile manufacturers
discharge indirectly to the Smith and Dan Rivers
through municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
In an attempt to address this problem, Virginia has
recently imposed color limits on its municipal WWTPs
and North Carolina is in the process of doing the
same.
2. The description of the current wastewater handling
should include the current and future breakdown of
sources, i.e., percent domestic and percent
industrial subdivided into major categories. While
the section "Need for the Project", p.3, implicitly
describes the wastewater sources, a table should be
added, explicitly listing the sources, types,,and
amounts of flow.
3. The "Analysis of Alternatives" section, p.3, should
contain the interim limits proposed in the draft SOC.

T
4
4. Part (j) of
p.6, should
sentence of
be replaced
the "Environmental Consequences" section,
be retitled "Water Quality". In the 2nd
the first paragraph "monitoring" should
with "modeling".
Part (j), paragraph two: wasteflow additions will be
approved incrementally to provide for review of plant
treatment performance in light of the potential for
hydraulic overloading and whole effluent toxicity
(not for modeling reasons).
Part (j), paragraph three: change "chronic" to
"whole effluent" toxicity. In addition, chlorine is
not.the only -constituent of concern with regard to
toxicity. Complex wastewaters such as from Eden
Mebane Bridge have the potential for toxicity
particularly with the proposed additions of
industrial process wastewater.
5. Part (1) of the "Environmental Consequences" section
under, "Toxic Substances" should be expanded upon.
The plant has a pretreatment program; it should be
described. In addition to chlorine, the report should
recognize toxic substances in the industrial
dischargers to the municipal plant, i.e., a chemical
specific breakdown should be provided.
6. The "Mitigative Measures" section, p.7, should be
expanded upon. "Water Quality" which was not listed
is the most important issue. Subsets of water
quality should be toxicity and color. The color
issue, a major issue for the plant, is mentioned for
the first time here. It should be listed as an
impact under "Environmental Consequences". Here, part
(5), the color issue should begin with, `In a
combined effort of North Carolina and Virginia to
improve the treatability of water for water supply,
and thereby protect its usage, ...'.
If you have any questions or comments concerning the listed
comments, please contact me at extension 516.
cc: Steve Mauney

i
1�
i'
9.
LiLiTP
1J Goo Zso''t 1
.Ln rrc ;S�-r n �✓�Vt (t�llM.lr'1f ,�EG-i-cvrl rr r C� Wa'''ttr
rW. ✓hA A+ o t� v�la`�t
fa f 1,la4cr St, p
P%
6n -Lx Pe rieht� ���tV, lle ) V� �; - 1
�DurtL e�Y SC G-f� C.tA (�-tC S
15 QICVA'K�
Gaat Co/ ceeA r-oJ,j/!S
�CDM °�GS USed 4eX4 )e
Pcv�.GtGT.li�l �Vcfa "F2KTrl� Y✓taAtlC'Cults
1
I
�; sc�tir�e ,��r t`ec.�Y +�-kl,,,,
S m�-i�t a�1 �arl
t ucFs 4krouq
M�`ntLlDa� I�rO�S vJG.V�t veaCm Aq-
ll"ies. .r_rl
A✓L aT%CMpI �v
atd�c�SS�S P`a��M f t C qr nra
J
has t'e-cc/1
iMPDS@d Coo s S
c I./VVT
Gij AlorA
Coda l,*na is .n
Al�. rD ce.ss a� c(a r e)j 44A
5a4ll , '
Ta 0j-ft y 4 L*ve- Fo-L+df3 11
p< <-s --Sefl4CA . Sin o" I,
5-0-JiOn
sk (4 vi I,f , I
pcAr -� s)
r�
�n of edM�, w�.� e (Fd r�-No r-ii (-&t-a Irer� Ah�� Vi �rn �1
�r
r

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 16, 1990
Melba McGee, Division of
g
Alan C1arkJ Water Quality
Planning and Assessment
Planning Branch
Draft EA for City of Eden Mebane Bridge Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion, Rockingham County
Enclosed are nine copies of the subject draft EA. Please
circulate it for a two week period through the EHNR clearinghouse
for review and comment. I will be soliciting comments directly
from Steve Mauney (regional office) and Trevor Clements.
Please advise if you need any additional information.
Enclosures
cc: Steve Tedder
Trevor Clements, Technical Support Branch
Steve Mauney, Winston-Salem Regional Office
David Cain, Finkbeiner, Pettis and Strout
Boyd DeVane
»N 1 819#0�
�s�;,,,,GAt SUFt ORT BRANCH

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
January 29, 1990
IN
MEMORAD'UM
.�" .0 r L.`,> ;Y. � 7 �1f 7. r ilr?t � -.. j.°.� ♦ t4.. ,
../ M �• •pt g ;lti
t3Y� ,Yd�:; . ,+1 •i •i1 : rII �• �{, _ 1ix�klj' ��.
1Vr
. •:•
TO, y�:�.�;� _�•.��.-�amsey:.. � ,�--` y,�tl, - ```. ,
JAN
Ibson
MY
s
FxoM:teve,w Tedder ECGht Sut'ORT 6RA{CH
Y SUBJECT* emit •Issuaxtc ,d s ��_ r �°�� '.
The .issuance of quality, is and . w3,11 remain a :top priority of the
Water Quality:.Section. -To-.ensure the -complete -review process and thus the
comments of �811. involved .in they ormation .of- vermi, limits and conditions, it
will be essential .that tdraaf�ermitE6 receivd adequate'` -review.
I would, .therefore,- request .that collectively -you devise a review
mechanim Alch will -accomplish `such • •review of -draft permits prior. • to notice.
If .there -are questions,.:- let` ae kmow.
cc: Don Safrit

i z/z�/,f%
pR�l
race-Metntic Dndc,.
WWTP
MbK`orVv� SiL�'k+or�S
i� 13C �y - ljp TC Conti qcQ.( C6L,4w ., Bobs
L7 N C VL -
p Wot¢r 5u f6 lvn-6- �4Ke, - co fort
p NC S 7 -Do.Y. Z- ,re,- (u�3{�cn») - c o l wa,
�C 17(,l --Dan e-L,.P-e ��ow.�stac.`> colovt - 3 sFiLtiay.s dv, -yv-a.•+set±
3/`f bT 6�5+un, 4G„DSS Yidtr'